Petitioner alleged non-compliance with a previous contempt judgment dated 21.01.2010. The High Court accepted that the judgment had been complied with and closed the contempt proceeding without further adjudication.
The contempt case is closed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932
Con.Case(C).No. 1178 of 2010(S) ------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.370/2009 Dated 21/01/2010 ....................
PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT:
D.G.SHARON DAS, D.G.COTTAGE, THALAYARUKONAM, MUKKAMPALAMOODU, NARUVAMOODU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) SRI.H.JAWHAR
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, (AGE AND NAME OF RESPONDENT'S FATHER IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), DIRECTOR, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA.
THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
When the matter is taken up, Sri.George Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the judgment dated 21.01.2010 has since been complied with.
In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to proceed further with the Contempt Case. Accordingly, it is closed.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb
D.G. Sharon Das
R. Vijayakumar
J.Chelameswar
P.R.Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
